owing federal health care spending is a major driver of future deficits. As CBO explains, “Spending for health care in the United States has been growing faster than the economy for many years, posing a challenge not only for the federal government’s two major health insurance programs, Medicare and Medicaid, but also for state and local governments and the private sector.” The report shows that the outlook is grimmer than ever, despite the vaunted “deficit reduction” claims of those in Congress who voted for Obamacare.
Obamacare means massive provider cuts and massive new spending. The new law relies on top-down cuts and an unelected board to make further cuts to the program to reduce its cost. Cutting health care providers’ reimbursements is the wrong way to reduce Medicare spending, since, as the Medicare Actuary has warned, it would threaten seniors’ access to care.
In addition to enacting these failed policies, after passing Obamacare, Congress once again temporarily extended a “doc fix” to avoid a permanent solution to the existing Medicare physician payment mess. Lawmakers will likely continue to delay the cuts mandated by the formula governing Medicare physician payment (misleadingly dubbed the sustainable growth rate, or SGR), guaranteeing huge increases in federal spending above what is assumed under current law.
CBO assumes many of the attempts to reduce Medicare spending, in addition to a continued “doc fix,” will lead spending in the program to exceed what is predicted under current law. It reports:
Beyond the initial 10-year span, CBO assumed that three Medicare policies that might be difficult to sustain over a long period—further reductions in payment updates for most providers in the fee-for-service program, the sustainable growth rate mechanism for payment rates for physicians, and the IPAB—would not continue past 2021. Without those policies in place, CBO expects that excess cost growth will follow the path of underlying excess cost growth described above.

Doc,
Your solution only limits the cost to government. The real problem is the cost of healthcare, not the share that government pays. Your solution simply limits the health care that seniors receive. We need to limit costs, not care.

I am not going to have this debate with you again Jerry. We keep having it and I keep winning it.

Your liberal buddy Pat might want to read the editorial piece from that big newspaper down the road in today’s newspaper.

It excoriates the Democrats for the political terrorism they are using in regard to the Ryan budget. It might even answer some of your questions. No matter how Obama and the Democrats continue to lie and demagogue they cannot avoid the simple math involved.

The U.S. House has passed a 2013 budget that includes a revised version of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s ambitious plans to curb the dizzily rising costs of Medicare. Democrats claim the plan offered by Ryan, R-Wis., would cripple health coverage for seniors.

We’ve seen this before. Last year, Democrats attacked Ryan’s Medicare proposal, raising fears the program would disappear. That “Mediscare” campaign was judged the “biggest political lie of 2011″ by Politifact, the Tampa Bay Times’ nonpartisan fact-checking website.

It looks as if Mediscare 2 may claim the biggest-lie title for 2012: Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., calls the latest plan “a Republican path to poverty that would pass like a tornado through America’s nursing homes where millions of America’s seniors receive long-term and end-of-life care.”

We’re hearing from a lot of concerned readers about this proposal, as we did during the debate last year. It’s worth taking a deep breath and looking at what the latest plan really would mean for various Americans. Some facts:

• For most seniors who are in Medicare right now, Ryan’s plan would change nothing. They would get the same benefits they get now. Some high-income seniors would pay more for doctor and drug coverage, starting in 2017. That’s it. Rep. DeLauro’s mother has nothing to fear. There will be no tornado through America’s nursing homes.

• If you are 55 or over, approaching the age of Medicare coverage, Ryan’s plan would change nothing else. You would get the current benefits when you reach the age of Medicare coverage.

• If you are under 55, Medicare would be substantially different by the time you qualify for coverage. Starting in 2023, the age of eligibility would begin a gradual rise. Right now benefits kick in when Americans turn 65. That eligibility age would reach 67 by 2034. Recipients would have more choices to buy coverage beyond traditional fee-for service care.

“snip”

Hmm. Guaranteed coverage. Help to pay for a government-set level of care. Private sector competition. And traditional Medicare as an option for people who today are under 55. What’s so scary?

Competition and choice should help tame costs. If that doesn’t happen, Ryan’s plan would cap overall Medicare spending based on the rise in the gross domestic product plus 0.5 percent.

The whole idea of insurance is to share the cost among all insurance policy holders. What better way to do that than have all people insured? And who has more power to negotiate prices? Me as an individual? My private insurance company, one of many insurance companies? Or the government representing all citizens?